Active Directory and SQL 2000 clustering on W2003

Is this true that Active Directory is needed in order to cluster the SQL2000.
I have 2 Dell 6000 series with a shared Dell RAID...
Any articles or links to see how can I set this up correctly?
You need a domain, NT 4.0, 2000 or 2003. AD is not needed.
Cheers,
Rod
MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
http://www.nw-america.com - Clustering
"Eugene Borukhovich" <macroscape@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:41df378d.0408191658.1d36e56d@.posting.google.c om...
> Is this true that Active Directory is needed in order to cluster the
> SQL2000.
> I have 2 Dell 6000 series with a shared Dell RAID...
> Any articles or links to see how can I set this up correctly?
|||You do not need active directory for SQL Server 2000 Clustering on W2K3. You do need the nodes of the cluster to be members of the same domain.
Here are some links that you may find useful. These will help with the requirements of Windows and SQL Clsutering, step by step installation, what it can do and what it cannot do, troubleshooting etc.
Step-by-step instructions for creating and configuring a typical single quorum device multi-node server cluster using a shared disk on servers running the Microsoft Windows Server 2003 Enterprise Edition and
Windows Server 2003 Datacenter Edition operating systems.
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/d...displaylang=en
SQL Server 2000 Failover Clustering
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pro.../failclus.mspx
There are few things different for clustering SQL Server 2000 on Win2K3 and the foll. KBs are useful
Installation of a Named Instance of SQL Server 2000 Virtual Server on a Windows 2003-Based Cluster Fails
http://support.microssoft.com/?id=815431
SQL Server 2000 Cluster Does Not Install on Windows Server 2003-Based Computers Where Terminal Services Is Installed (Has better info than 327270)
http://support.microsoft.com/?id=301520
SQL Server 2000 Is Not Supported on Windows Server 2003 Terminal Server Application Server
http://support.microsoft.com/?id=327270
Virtual SQL Server 2000 Installation Fails on Cluster That Has Eight Nodes
http://support.microsoft.com/?id=811054
SQL Server 2000 support for mounted volumes
http://support.microsoft.com/?id=819546
Best Regards,
Uttam Parui
Microsoft Corporation
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
Are you secure? For information about the Strategic Technology Protection Program and to order your FREE Security Tool Kit, please visit http://www.microsoft.com/security.
Microsoft highly recommends that users with Internet access update their Microsoft software to better protect against viruses and security vulnerabilities. The easiest way to do this is to visit the following websites:
http://www.microsoft.com/protect
http://www.microsoft.com/security/guidance/default.mspx
|||So w/o actually reading through all the links yet and to confirm that
there is no dependencies on the AD at all. When you say "domain" - can
it be a workgroup?
this will be in a highly secure environment, so i dont want any AD nor
these SQL servers even joining the AD.
Thanks, Eugene B
|||Clustered SQL Servers must have a common security context. This means they
must be member servers of an NT4 or AD domain. A common workgroup will not
work.
I am concerned that you see AD as a security problem rather than a solution.
Perhaps your system administrators do not fully understand how to implement
AD in a highly secure environment.
Geoff N. Hiten
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Senior Database Administrator
Careerbuilder.com
I support the Professional Association for SQL Server
www.sqlpass.org
"Eugene Borukhovich" <macroscape@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:41df378d.0408250542.71ac947e@.posting.google.c om...
> So w/o actually reading through all the links yet and to confirm that
> there is no dependencies on the AD at all. When you say "domain" - can
> it be a workgroup?
> this will be in a highly secure environment, so i dont want any AD nor
> these SQL servers even joining the AD.
> Thanks, Eugene B
|||You can't have it on a workgroup. It must be on a domain - AD or NT. If
you really want security, then you'll have to put it within its own forest
and set up a one-way trust.
Tom
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Columnist, SQL Server Professional
Toronto, ON Canada
www.pinnaclepublishing.com/sql
"Eugene Borukhovich" <macroscape@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:41df378d.0408250542.71ac947e@.posting.google.c om...
So w/o actually reading through all the links yet and to confirm that
there is no dependencies on the AD at all. When you say "domain" - can
it be a workgroup?
this will be in a highly secure environment, so i dont want any AD nor
these SQL servers even joining the AD.
Thanks, Eugene B
|||Hi ,
I am trying to install cluster SQL2000 on a WIN2003MSCS. Are there any
links to step by step procedure. Install on a WIN 2000 is quite
different.WIN 2003 cluster service is setup and running. Any
documentations on a SQL virtual server setup will be much appreciated.
Thank you
*** Sent via Developersdex http://www.codecomments.com ***
Don't just participate in USENET...get rewarded for it!
|||There are few things different for clustering SQL Server 2000 on Win2K3 and the foll. KBs are useful
Installation of a Named Instance of SQL Server 2000 Virtual Server on a Windows 2003-Based Cluster Fails
http://support.microssoft.com/?id=815431
SQL Server 2000 Cluster Does Not Install on Windows Server 2003-Based Computers Where Terminal Services Is Installed (Has better info than 327270)
http://support.microsoft.com/?id=301520
SQL Server 2000 Is Not Supported on Windows Server 2003 Terminal Server Application Server
http://support.microsoft.com/?id=327270
Virtual SQL Server 2000 Installation Fails on Cluster That Has Eight Nodes
http://support.microsoft.com/?id=811054
SQL Server 2000 support for mounted volumes
http://support.microsoft.com/?id=819546
How to Configure Microsoft Distributed Transaction Coordinator on a Windows Server 2003 Cluster
http://support.microsoft.com/?id=301600
How to enable Network DTC access in Windows Server 2003
http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=817064
HTH,
Best Regards,
Uttam Parui
Microsoft Corporation
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
Are you secure? For information about the Strategic Technology Protection Program and to order your FREE Security Tool Kit, please visit http://www.microsoft.com/security.
Microsoft highly recommends that users with Internet access update their Microsoft software to better protect against viruses and security vulnerabilities. The easiest way to do this is to visit the following websites:
http://www.microsoft.com/protect
http://www.microsoft.com/security/guidance/default.mspx

Activation

I was testing around with a sample service broker app using activation, and came across an interesting question. The little app sends a series of four messages to a queue, either on the same conversation or on seperate ones. Each message invokes one stored procedure in my activation procedure. All the procedure does is enter a record into a test table and then wait for an allotted amount of time. In my example, the first message called a proc that waited 20 sec, the 2nd one that waited 10 seconds, the third 5 seconds, and the 4th 1 second. I am using internal activation on the queue. It seemed that in both scenarios (sending on 4 separate conversations and on one conversation) the procedures executed "almost" sequentially. "Almost" meaning that the first procedure was done before the last one started executing. It makes sense to me that this would happen where I sent them on the same conversation, but not really when I sent them on 4 seperate ones. Is it because when I call a procedure from my activation procedure it locks the queue so that another message cannot be processed (I'm processing a message at a time)? How could I make it so that the 4th procedure (the one that only waits 1 second) returns before the 1st procedure (the one that waits 20 seconds)?MAX_QUEUE_READERS = ?|||

Sorry, my max_queue_readers where 5 in both situations.

Tim

|||

With one message per conversation then new instances of the stored procedure may be launched, so a message that arrived later may be processed sooner by a new instance activated procedure.

Also, even locally, the message order is only guaranteed within a conversation, so 5 messages sent on 5 conversation may arrive on the target queue in any order (unlikely to arive in different order, but one should not assume order between conversations)

|||You reference that new instances of a sproc may be launched for one message per convo, but what determines if it will or not? Will it only happen if some threshold is exceeded on the queue? The reason I was doing the little test was because I haven't seen any articles out there really detailing good ways to run large processing queries asynchronously for one application, so I was wanting to write one. My main curiosity was if there was any way to modify any of the settings for the procedure activation (which I don't think that there is).|||I just read your blog entry on Parallel Activation...neat stuff. Although, I doubt that it is something I would ever need to implement. I changed my procedures a bit so that they delay for a longer time period, and it appears that a new activation occurs ~ 5 seconds.